Where is the annual Good Friday thread?

jobeenfitz

catallus wrote: »

Yes. They did. And the point is is that they were not Christian.

We have to know what we're talking about here.

Don't get the point here. What are we talking about here?

catallus

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Don't get the point here. What are we talking about here?

The point is that one should follow a definite line of philosophical enquiry as opposed to nonsensical flotsam.

Jamsiek

catallus wrote: »

The point is that one should follow a definite line of philosophical enquiry as opposed to nonsensical flotsam.

So the "philosophical enquiry" is only acceptable if you are Christian?

jobeenfitz

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Plenty of societies got on just fine without it.

This society has suffered because of it.

catallus

Jamsiek wrote: »

So the "philosophical enquiry" is only acceptable if you are Christian?

For us? Yes.

matrim

catallus wrote: »

For us? Yes.

So what's your policy on Limbo?

Jamsiek

catallus wrote: »

For us? Yes.

You will need to excuse non-christians for ignoring your "philosophical enquiry" then.

catallus

Jamsiek wrote: »

You will need to excuse non-christians for ignoring your "philosophical enquiry" then.

Ignoring things= Ignorance

languagenerd

I don't really care about Good Friday tbh - to me, it's just an odd archaic law that somehow made it through the decades. If it was a week or the whole season of Lent, that'd be different, but it's one day, you know in advance to stock up if you want & many clubs are opening at midnight anyway so you can still go out. It *is* kinda funny seeing confused stag parties in Temple Bar though :v

I really hate term "nanny state" though! People throw it around a lot (perhaps correctly) when discussing any law that curtails drinking or smoking... But at the same time, there have never been as many lawsuits where people blame the state/authorities/powers that be for their own stupidity so they can get a big payout. Can't have it both ways!

Jamsiek

catallus wrote: »

Ignoring things= Ignorance

Everyone is ignorant of something.
A Buddhist could say you're ignorant of their religion

C14N

languagenerd wrote: »

I really hate term "nanny state" though! People throw it around a lot (perhaps correctly) when discussing any law that curtails drinking or smoking... But at the same time, there have never been as many lawsuits where people blame the state/authorities/powers that be for their own stupidity so they can get a big payout. Can't have it both ways!

I completely agree. This has nothing to do with a Nanny State. This law has nothing to do with the government worrying that people will drink too much on exactly one day of the year. It has little relevance to the modern day church too, it's not here because the clergy keep lobbying to leave it there. It was put there when most people weren't going to be drinking on the day anyway and then just stuck around.

Jamsiek

C14N wrote: »

It was put there when most people weren't going to be drinking on the day anyway and then just stuck around.

Good reason to repeal the law then, times change.

VinLieger

Considering how bare the vast majority of supermarket beer shelves are gonna be by 10 o clock tonight it just shows how pointless this has become, fair enough if you dont wann drink cus of your religion or beliefs or whatever you have but forcing it on people who don't hold those beliefs is wrong and theres no other way to describe it.

TwoShedsJackson

Jamsiek wrote: »

I would hope so but there still seems to be a very vocal minority of religious zealots in Ireland opposed to any kind of progress.

Don't worry, they'll nearly all be dead in another 15 years or so.

I Heart Internet

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't worry, they'll nearly all be dead in another 15 years or so.

That's what people have been telling themselves since AD34.

J_E

I find the alcohol rule so bizarre, it's like this strange piece of law that has somehow slipped through the cracks and stayed there. If I did want a glass of Bailey's after a tough workout tomorrow and got reminded they couldn't serve me, I'd be both bemused and frustrated! Not sure what people have to gain from it. If you're of such inclinations, don't drink tomorrow. If not...oh, we won't let you drink anyway. Ha!

I Heart Internet

Cydoniac wrote: »

I find the alcohol rule so bizarre, it's like this strange piece of law that has somehow slipped through the cracks and stayed there. If I did want a glass of Bailey's after a tough workout tomorrow and got reminded they couldn't serve me, I'd be both bemused and frustrated! Not sure what people have to gain from it. If you're of such inclinations, don't drink tomorrow. If not...oh, we won't let you drink anyway. Ha!

The only people to gain, in theory, from it all are bar workers.

You hear anecdotal "I know a fella works in a bar...." stories but I'd like to hear the views of a good range of bar workers -

- Do you really have the day off? (someone mentioned having to deep-clean the pub on that day!)
- Do you like that day off?
- Would you prefer to be working?
- Would you like to keep the law as it is?

J_E

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The only people to gain, in theory, from it all are bar workers.

You hear anecdotal "I know a fella works in a bar...." stories but I'd like to hear the views of a good range of bar workers -

- Do you really have the day off? (someone mentioned having to deep-clean the pub on that day!)
- Do you like that day off?
- Would you prefer to be working?
- Would you like to keep the law as it is?

Oh I Heart Internet, you know I'd normally start one of these circular debates, but we both know where you stand and I don't think arguing with you is going to do either of us any good

Some of us enjoy the freedom to consume a drink on a Friday evening, and a day that doesn't align with our personal views shouldn't affect us, no matter how 'insignificant' it may seem!

I Heart Internet

Cydoniac wrote: »

Oh I Heart Internet, you know I'd normally start one of these circular debates, but we both know where you stand and I don't think arguing with you is going to do either of us any good

Some of us enjoy the freedom to consume a drink on a Friday evening, and a day that doesn't align with our personal views shouldn't affect us, no matter how 'insignificant' it may seem!

I don't understand. I've previously stated on this thread that I have no strong feelings either way on this issue. And that I think neither state nor religions/religious people gain anything from this "enforced sacrifice".

So what's wrong with wanting to hear from other people it might affect - people who have to pull a 12 hour shift on the day, or not (other than those people who may be inconvenienced by not being able to get a drink).

Why try to close down the debate. I'd like to hear their views.

J_E

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why try to close down the debate. I'd like to hear their views.

Oh wonderful, you've caught onto the trendy buzzwords too, good to stay trendy Make sure to save 'traditional values' for another time.

I think it bothers you a lot more than you let on, if it didn't, you wouldn't be so insistent on defending it. I think we already know how about your strong feelings on religious-based issues. So I think we'll leave it at that, I'd rather discuss this with someone a little less rigid on their mindset.

whisky_galore

Cydoniac wrote: »

I find the alcohol rule so bizarre, it's like this strange piece of law that has somehow slipped through the cracks and stayed there. If I did want a glass of Bailey's after a tough workout tomorrow and got reminded they couldn't serve me, I'd be both bemused and frustrated! Not sure what people have to gain from it. If you're of such inclinations, don't drink tomorrow. If not...oh, we won't let you drink anyway. Ha!

Same prohibition applied to St Paddy's Day at one time, kind of hard to believe now.

I Heart Internet

Cydoniac wrote: »

Oh wonderful, you've caught onto the trendy buzzwords too, good to stay trendy Make sure to save 'traditional values' for another time.

I think it bothers you a lot more than you let on, if it didn't, you wouldn't be so insistent on defending it. I think we already know how about your strong feelings on religious-based issues. So I think we'll leave it at that, I'd rather discuss this with someone a little less rigid on their mindset.

But I don't think I am defending it. I'm asking people if they'ed like the law changed (not that I can do anything about it).

I think it's an un-answered question - what so real-lfe bar staff think about the Good Friday closures - are they for it or against it? Do you know Cydoniac?

I Heart Internet

whisky_galore wrote: »

Same prohibition applied to St Paddy's Day at one time, kind of hard to believe now.

A legal prohibition? Was there? I don't know that public houses were legally obliged to close on St Patrick's day in the past.

Riskymove

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A legal prohibition? Was there? I don't know that public houses were legally obliged to close on St Patrick's day in the past.

yes they were

also had to close from 2-5 on a Sunday

jimgoose

Riskymove wrote: »

yes they were

also had to close from 2-5 on a Sunday

'Twas 2 to 4pm, known as "Holy Hour" although it was actually two hours. Anything to bamboozle you! :pac:

I Heart Internet

Riskymove wrote: »

yes they were

also had to close from 2-5 on a Sunday

Thanks - yeah - googled it. Closed on St Patricks day up until the 60/70s (depending who you read). Never knew that.

Can remember the holy hour alright.

Riskymove

jimgoose wrote: »

'Twas 2 to 4pm, known as "Holy Hour" although it was actually two hours. Anything to bamboozle you! :pac:

it was 2-5 until the 1988 Act when it became 2-4

jimgoose

Riskymove wrote: »

it was 2-5 until the 1988 Act when it became 2-4

Oh? Didn't remember that.

TwoShedsJackson

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's what people have been telling themselves since AD34.

Absolutely, I mean there is no evidence that religiosity has decreased in Ireland since the 1980s, for example. Or the 1680s.

I Heart Internet

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Absolutely, I mean there is no evidence that religiosity has decreased in Ireland since the 1980s, for example. Or the 1680s.

Yes there is. But this doesn't prove your assetion right. Let's meet up in 25 years and see if the RCC still exists. Perhaps we should invite the other 1.2 billion roman catholics (or however many there are by then) for the craic.